Noble-Webster v Simms - [2006] NTSC 52

Noble-Webster v Simms [2006] NTSC 52
PARTIES:NOBLE-WEBSTER, Tracey Elizabeth

v
SIMMS, Erica

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 9 of 2006 (20504613)
DELIVERED:  3 July 2006
HEARING DATES:  3 July 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY J
APPEAL FROM:  Court of Summary Jurisdiction sentence,

Mr H. Bradley CM, 27 February 2006
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:C McAlister
Respondent:  A Nobbs
Solicitors:
Appellant:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  ril0611
Number of pages:  10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Noble-Webster v Simms [2006] NTSC 52
No JA 9 of 2006 (20504613)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:
NOBLE-WEBSTER, Tracey Elizabeth

Appellant
AND:
SIMMS, Erica

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 3 July 2006)

On 10 February 2006 the appellant pleaded guilty to having unlawfully assaulted Lyndsay Craufurd with accompanying circumstances of aggravation, namely that Ms Craufurd suffered bodily harm and that she was threatened with a folding knife. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for five years. She was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four months with the sentence to be suspended after she had served a period of imprisonment of 14 days. She now appeals against that sentence on the following grounds:

(1)The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
(2)The learned magistrate erred in placing insufficient weight on the personal circumstances of the appellant, particularly her youth, lack of relevant prior convictions and demonstrated rehabilitation.
(3)The learned magistrate erred in the view that only an actual term of imprisonment would serve the purpose of general deterrence and placed too much weight on general deterrence.
(4)The learned magistrate erred in considering home detention inappropriate to avoid what he wrongly perceived to be the impact upon the appellant’s child.

The principal submission put on behalf of the appellant was that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances and the remaining grounds were argued in support of that submission.
The offending
The offending occurred on 16 December 2004. At about 11.30 pm on that day the appellant accompanied her friend, Ms Sikyr, and two other women to an address in Emery Avenue, Gray. The appellant was intoxicated by alcohol and, possibly, amphetamines. She sat in the car and observed Ms Sikyr and the victim, Ms Craufurd, engage in a physical fight on the road. At some point Ms Sikyr returned to the car and handed the appellant a knife with a six centimetre blade. The appellant then walked to where the victim was located. The victim was at that time bleeding from the face. The learned sentencing magistrate was informed that the appellant approached her and was swearing at her and then the appellant’s “subsequent actions caused…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Noble-Webster v Simms

Details

AGLC: Noble-Webster v Simms [2006] NTSC 52
Case: [2006] NTSC 52
Decision Date: 3 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Noble-Webster v Simms, Tracey Elizabeth Noble-Webster, the appellant, contested the sentence imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. Simms, the respondent, represented by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued against the appeal. The appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault on Lyndsay Craufurd, involving the infliction of bodily harm and the use of a folding knife. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was excessive, whether the magistrate appropriately weighed the appellant's personal circumstances, and if the magistrate erred in focusing on general deterrence and the impact on the appellant's child.

The court examined the circumstances of the assault, noting the appellant's intoxication and the unprovoked nature of the attack. It highlighted the appellant's youth, lack of prior convictions, and the care she provided for her six-month-old child. The court considered these factors but found that the magistrate appropriately balanced them against the seriousness of the offence. The court concluded that the sentence, a four-month imprisonment suspended after 14 days, was within the legal range and did not manifest any error. The appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the court found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor the result of any identified error. The court upheld the magistrate's assessment of the case, including the consideration of general deterrence and the impact on the child, finding no grounds for interference with the sentence.

Orders